The sub continent of India is divided almost equally into two by the tropic of cancer. That is why the northern part ofthe country is dominated by sub-tropical and temperate climate. In this type of climate organic materials decay very fast and thus do not favour preservation of human fossil also. So, in the understanding of Indian culture, archaeologists are miserably ignorant about its chief resource i.e. the prehistoric man, rather profuse chipped stones are left behind to ponder over and speculate about its maker. But the ultimate aim of an archaeologist is not to dig up stone tools, rather to be engaged^pie study ofman, because culture is not the sum total oftools or potteries, but an inter-related system of its components. In the study of early human culture, the archaeologists want to get much nearer to early man, to see him as an individual, as a member of a society. But the concept of past society is something which can not be excavated. Nobody could dig up a political system, a set of religious beliefs or social customs or climatic cycle and such set of behavioural pattern taken together forms the culture of a society, what an archaeologist would ideally liker to construct.
The solitary memorial of the stone age, i.e. the imperishable stone objects could out last the ravages of time with few other materials, which, except in very rare instances, only partly survive in the long run. These reduced, decayed and patinated evidences are the only equipment available to a prehistorian, in the study of the past.
Thus, it is seen that archaeological data have their limitations. The only hard evidence described above also could not speak enough about their identity, function or functional values by themselves. Unless the bits and pieces of the same become alive to an archaeologist it will remain virtually unutilized in archaeological reconstruction. So, in the attempt of understanding the culture of prehistoric man, there is no other alternative choice before an archaeologist than to exploit every possible ways to make this dumb tool speak. Thus the subject gradually emerged into an interpretative discipline co-operating and collaborating with other fields of study to give a more comprehensive view ofthe past The stone, bone or pottery pieces which are otherwise mute, begin to tell the story only when studied by a prehistorian. The soil on which they lie could only be analysed by a geologist. The environment that surrounds it could only be examined by a geographer. The man who manufactured them could be investigated by an anthropologist only and so on. Thus it is evident that no one branch
ofnatural science would have been capable ofdealing with the problems of archaeology. In this way step by step, piece by piece, the history of the bygone people could be built if such inter disciplinary approaches are adopted and corroborated.
India has always been regarded as a land with sound tradition of her own, in respect of religious, cultural or social field as well as in other a aspects of life, may it be agricultural, artistic or craftsmanship. Here in India, the past has never been divorced from its present, rather it has been matured without obliterating and absorbing that, which has gone before. As Kosambi observes, ‘perhaps nowhere in the World, can such parallels be found more readily than in India’. Many aboriginal tribal culture here, are recongnizable which stem from the prehistoric period. So, when we deal with Indian archaeology no other discipline than ethnography emerges as most suitable for a proper understanding of the value and significance of the prehistoric artifacts.
‘Ethnography’ is a record of observation of contemporary behaviour. The discipline includes the study of present tribal population, which helps to gain insight into the prehistoric life pattern. Many ethnographic informations suggest that some tribals are certainly the cultural descendants of prehistoric people. The technology, material culture, economy and even social and religious practices of these folks and primitive societies can be a very valuable guide in interpretation and reconstruction of the fragmentary and somewhat unintelligible archaeological evidence. It should be remembered that no society, however primitive, is expected to remain static using stone objects over a length of time and it is impossible for a community to live exactly in the same way as it was in the stone age. Ethnographic data could be useful only in furnishing the functional possibilities of excavated features and artifacts.
Thus it could be said that making observation in contemporary communities would be utilised to secure ‘as many as varied interpretative hypothesis as possible to help us understanding archaeological remains’. It could facilitate the development and refinement of insight into the past behaviour when strong similarities could be established between the two. As the society is changing in a rapid pace, the transitoriness of ethnographic material makes it much valuable, as it is slipping away day by day and can never be retrieved.
Thus in the attempt of understanding primitive culture, we have drawn upon two main sources – archaeological and ethnographical. The combination of archaeology i.e. the study of the material remains of the past and ethnography i.e. the study of the culture ofthe present, or what we may call ethno – archaeology should be an welcome approach to the study of archaeological remains. It is a study of living communities from the point of view of archaeological evidence. In Stainslawaki’s word “Ethnoarchaeology is the direct observation field study of the form, manufacture distribution, meaning and use ofartifacts and their institutional setting and social unit correlates among living non-industrial people for the purpose of constructing better explanatory needs, to aid archaeological analogy and inference’. Ethnoarchaeology could be directed at any facet of culture. It is in a sense a technique for the recovery of information and applicable so long as the human activities leave a material residue. So Chang viewed ethnoarchaeological study as the reconstruction of an old play that is being staged at another theatre but in same stage setting. It provides substantive empirical data which supplement available ethnographic data and this data are frequently utilised in the evaluation of hypothesis derived initially from interpretation of archaeological data or ethnographic record. So, it could be said that ethnoarchaeology provides a reasonable degree of hypothetical probability than mere speculation an romanticizing about the past.
In ethnoarchaeology, it is attempted to reach the past via the knowledge about the present But in doing so, a warning should be voiced. If we imagine a two-sided equation, one side being occupied by behaviour observed among a modem primitive folk and the other observation of archaeological materials and if more than a superficial similarity is noticed, then only the model could be considered to be suitable for ethno-archaeological study.
It should not be assumed that all the past behaviours have analogues available for observation to day and if the hiatus of time between these two becomes very wide, then an ethno archaeologist should remain very cautious to draw valid inference. Again a researcher of this discipline might not find all his relevant information in an ethnographic report, since an ethnographer is concerned more about social aspects of people which are not directly represented in archaeological remains.
As Binford opines, “Our understanding of the past is not simply a matter of interpreting the archaeological record by analogy to living societies as has been commonly asserted. Our knowledge is sound to the degree that we can verify our postulates scientifically…..Scientific verification for archaeologists is the same as for other scientists: it involves testing (hypothesis systematically”. So, it would be the best to make analogy between two such models, where a more or less similar economic developmental stages and environmental conditions of limited time gap prevails. Even after that every source necessitates careful sifting before its incorporation into the study. Ethnographic study would be sought here only to obtain hints to understand the essential basis and character of the culture of a region.
According to Sinopoli ‘ethno archaeological studies in south Asia do not provide a blueprint of the past.’ She further added that demonstration of link between past cultures with present day hunter-gatherer is not theoretically necessary and nor she suspects, is it justified.
Study of analogy derived from present observation to aid interpretation of the past event was utilized in Indian archaeology quite a long ago. John Marshall attempted to avail existing evidences quite extensively to interpret excavated materials of Mohanjodaro. Mackay largely depend on modem ethnographic analogies to interprets the excavated evidences of Mohenjodaro and Chanhudaro. Cunnighum also stressed on ancient forms of objects in use in countryside to identify excavated objects. So it could be said that though it seems to be a new bom discipline, some ofthe south Asian archaeologists were making ethonoarchaeological approaches, long before the term came to be coined in the western World.
V.G. Childe observed that it would be impossible to recreate past knowledge on its own terms. He further entrusted the job to historian to locate the past in its proper social and chronological context in those thoughts that are still living and active in our own culture. This assertion is very much relevant in eastern and north-eastern Indian archaeological perspective. This part of the sub continent could be designated as a living human museum where people have left traces of their former presence from time immemorial. The region has accommodated both a varied tribal population, who still subsist on some primitive economic pursuit like hunting, gathering and other distinctive traits, along with a rich prehistoric treasure in every nook and corner of the hill tops, banks of streams or simply scattered in open air sites. These contemporary, non-literate primitive people might be recognised as the representative if not exactly, of the early tool maker, among whom vestiges of early economic adaptation could be found. Prehistoric artifacts can be better understood if they are studied by comparing them with those of the primitive people of today. As Haimendorf observed that though ‘palaeolithic and neolithic stone industry has become obsolete, the ways of life and the economic pattern of both the older and younger stone ages still persist in aboriginal India’. Some particular traditions are very well adapted to a regional environment and deeply rooted in the cultural psyche, in the myths and symbols and pervade in many aspects of life. Some elements of the prehistoric people might have preserved unintentionally among these aborigines, which have long been abandoned in civilized societies. It is in their day to day practice which these tribal people show remarkable closeness to prehistoric tradition.
Thus materials are all around our region, for study, still the picture of Neolithic culture of eastern and north-eastern India remained somewhat sketchy. In this chapter we shall look into those ethnographic reports having some bearing in archaeological reconstruction. By making and effective utilization of this isolated description together, we shall try to unravel the multifarious facets of the culture with a view to undertake micro level study in future.
In north-eastern India, none of the neolithic sites except Selbalgiri no antecedent stage of neolithic culture could be found. In Selbalgiri though a microlithic phase precede the neolithic but continuity or transformation from microlithic phase to neolithic phase could not be established. So, it seems that neolithic culture of north-eastern India is not indigenous. Further tool typological affinity between south-east Asian neolithic sites and north-east Indian neolithic sites strongly supports a south-east Asiatic infiltration of neolithic culture to the north-east India. Ethnographically too the myth and tradition of the present day tribals tells that they are immigrants to the region. Linguistically as wells as physically too they are akin to south-east Asian people. So, it could be conjectured on ethnoarchaeological ground that Neolithic culture of north-eastern India is not indigenous. The influence of south-east Asia on north- eastern Indian neolithic culture can further be traced on the basis of typological similarities of tool and pottery, also.
In neolithic south-East Asia, agriculture was practised in jhum method. This method is a mixed cropping cultivation round the year in a single plot. If south-east Asian influence on north-east Indian neolithic traits is accepted, then there is every chance of borrowing of similar agricultural technique i.e., jhum in a natural way. In north-eastern India, this method of raising crop is widely practiced today.
The Tangsa is a tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. These people are well known for their jhum or slash-and-bum cultivation. In clearing their agricultural field, in weeding and scraping, the tribe uses a hoe, locally known as jankho. This hoe has certain distinct features from the socketted and tanged hoe. The blade of jankho is thinner. Besides that it is not so handy and effective. In hafting, the butt end of the blade is ingenuously inserted and tactfully tied into a piece of folded cane. The bended ends of the cane which ultimately fold into one unit are fastened together by another cane strip to form the handle.
In archaeological context, from the same area at Shallong in Tirap district, neolithic celts have been reported. So, if these two features are combined i.e., application of primitive nature of hafting of the iron hoe along with modem handy and effective hafting practice and south-east Asian neolithic type of farming in all over north-eastern India in present day it could be inferred that in lithic period stone blades might have been hafted in this way and north eastern Indian neolithians, at least, adopted slash-and-bum method of cultivation.
In jhum or slash-and-bum type of agriculture a plot is used for few years and then left fallow for another few years to gain its fertility. So, in this type of agricultural practice farmers have to shift their plot from time to time. Thus it is quite unnecessary for him to raise permanent structures. These jhum farmers dwellings are mostly made up of perishable materials like leave, clay, bamboo, wood etc.
In archaeological context, the non-yield of any settlement evidence perhaps supports this type of agricultural operation further. This perishable raw materials of such short duration settlements also produce very thin deposit in a strata. So in archaeological context the thin neolithic deposits of north-eastern neolithic sites and ethnographical support of use of perishable settlement materials by present day jhum cultivators together proves by another way the practice of jhum type of cultivation by north-eastern neolithic folks. This postulate is further strengthened by south-east Asian affinities.
In present context many a tribe raise their dwellings in hill tops, hill slopes as well as near water resources. In neolithic period also settlements have been discovered mostly in highlands or on the river banks. So, similar attitude in both past and present on the matter of selecting settlement sites unmistakably underlines that neolithic folks were dependent on riverine creatures along with incipient farming as well as natural food gathering. Selection of high land reflects their precautionary approach to avoid flood attack.
In the subsistence pattern of north-eastern Indian tribals, domestication never played a significant role. Pig, mithun, cow, dog, etc. are generally domesticated but not herded. Rather to be kept in captivity these animals are allowed to graze in the surrounding jungles. These animals are only brought in the villages when required for food, barter or any ritual sacrifices etc. This type of semi-domestication may lend support to the non-yield of any evidence of domestic animal in north-eastern Indian neolithic settlement sites. Similar use of such animals might have been in vogue that time.
Ethnographic records suggest that earthen wares are not very widely used by present day tribals of north-eastern as well as eastern India. Most of their household objects are made up of wood, bamboo, leaf made utensils. In fetching water from streams or water-falls the Garos use bamboo tubes as pipes. Similar bamboo tubes are also used by the Mikirs, Nagas to store their water. Besides that, joints of bamboo tubes serve the purpose of ornament container too46. Bottle gourd is often cultivated by different tribes like the Garo, the Juang, etc. for carrying water. The Nagas use mithun’s horn as drinking vessels. For cooking rice even newly cut bamboo nodes are often used.
Archaeologically too, an overall review of entire collection of northeastern Indian neolithic complex reveals that the percentage of yielded pottery is not very significant here. This may be accounted for the same reason i.e., the neolithian might had depended on wooden, unbumt earthen, cane or leaf made utensils like that of many present day tribals of this area. Thin archaeological deposit is also a proof ofuse ofperishable materials for daily use.
Like present day tribal pottery, the neolithic pottery were also made by coil method and hand modelling. From archaeological site of Parsi – Parlo, Taba and Vigo of Arunachal Pradesh, four classes of pottery have been encountered51. Among them class A consists of plain coarse red ware, cord marked coarse red ware and stamped coarse red ware. Class B is represented by fine buff ware and plain coarse thick red ware. Among them for Parsi – Parlo the stamped coarse red ware is found with polished axe and waisted axe and could be assigned a late neolithic date on the basis of typo-technological character similar to one witnessed in China.
In present ethnographic context if we consider the Nishi pottery or ‘takam pachang’, it is found that in all its morphological aspect, the pottery remained absolutely unchanged from prehistoric tiroes. This handmade pottery is generally red in colour and decorated with irregular stamped .pattern. This very stamped coarse red ware is also encountered in historical phase among certain north -eastern Arunachal tribes.
The Sema Nagas fabricate their pottery by hand alone. After shaping, the pot is fired in an open fire with dried grass and wood. The pottery thus produced are generally coarse and rough. The neolithic pottery found from Daojali handing excavation are in all the cases show evidence of imperfect firing. It is evidenced from the dark core seen in almost all the sherds. So, it can be deduced from the ethnographic evidence that the neolithic folk of Daojali hading might have also followed the similar open firing method in manufacturing pottery.
Besides these features of a typical neolithic culture i.e. agriculture, domestication and pottery making, other subsistence economies could be reconstructed with the help of both archaeological and ethnographic combination of evidences. These evidences suggest that inspite of invention of agriculture, neolithic people depended on earlier economic pursuits like hunting, fishing and food gathering to a great extent. As they were still under the control of nature, farming might have been a seasonal activity only and in lean seasons they had to resort to other substitutes.
Hunting economy could be undoubtedly attested by the presence of the use of bow, arrow, spear, etc. by almost all the tribes, even today. Archaeologically, terracotta ball, sling ball from Chirand, Maner suggest their use in pellet bow for hunting. From neolithic layer of Chirand bone spear head have been encountered. Similar spear head of iron are used for fishing by the present day fisherman of north Bihar. Besides spear head, many primitive tribes of present are found to fish in the pond by poisoning the entire water of the reservoir.
Further more discovery of net sinkers, bodkins from Chirand, leesta river site etc. also proves fishing activity in neolithic eastern and north-eastern India. In India few primitive tribes are still remained in food gathering stage (forest hunting). They subsist mainly on gathering of various forest produces. For instance in remote areas of Bihar, the seeds of Setaria grass (Setaria cf gluca) are found to be gathered and eaten by different tribes. This very wild plant with many others have also been found from neolithic cultural level of Senuvvar.
The Khasi constitutes an agricultural tribe. Originally, they represent a shouldered stone hoe culture. In agricultural field they use a peculiar shaped iron spade called ‘mokhiw ’. This spade has two shoulders far projected from its body and recalls the shouldered stone celt of neolithic type. This celt is different in shape from the neolithic stone celts found from other parts of India (except that of Chhotanagpur plateau), while it shows, similarity in nomenclature with the Burmese celt. Considering these two cases together, it seems that there might be some ground to believe that the Khasis were somehow related with the neolithic folk of Malay peninsula and Chhotanagpur plateau.
This shouldered celt is a very common neolithic tool of north-eastern India. It has already been described that it is a faceted tool with smooth and flat surface except near the cutting edge. The cutting edge is straight while the butt end is prolonged perhaps for an advantage of hafting.
The Naga tribe consists of several groups viz. Sema Naga, Ao Naga, Kacha Naga, Yimtsung Naga etc. It has already been described that the Nagas also form an agricultural tribe. Various agricultural implements of this tribe provide ample clue in our study.
In digging, the Sema Nagas use a hoe with crooked handle made from a forked bough. It comes in two sizes the larger one Pushyekupu is used for digging up new land and the smaller hongokupu is only used in sowing. A variety of this hoe is also found from Yachumi country and is locally called as tafuchi. The blade of these type ofhoe is also nothing but broad blade with shoulders.
The Nagas of Ledo use an iron bladed hoe. The tanged blade of this hoe is presumed by Balfour13 to have been a derivation of tanged and shouldered type of neolithic stone adze. Another division of Naga tribe, the Yimtsung Nagas also use similar little curved
shoulder headed adze of neolithic type. It is generally used in sweet potato patches. In Santal Pargana many stone age relics are encountered, mostly near the settlement of the Mons and Mundas15. Among them, shoulder headed celt is mentionable. Scholars are ofopinion that these stone implements were originally made by these Mon and Munda races.
The Savara is a very ancient tribe of India. Indian scriptures provide ample reference showing their settlement in India long before the immigration of the Aryans. In 1931 census report they have been mentioned as user of shouldered adze, simple bamboo, arrow etc.
In the same report Hutton wrote about Oraons. who are also found to use shouldered hoe, not unlike that of the Khasis. So. from these evidences it could be safely suggested that the shouldered celt continued its use since the time of the neolithic period down to the present days. It is further noted that most of these present day tribes use this shouldered celt in their agricultural fields. So, there is room to assume that in north-eastern India, agriculture. A was known from neolithic times. The Garo tribe is generally found in isolated comer of north-eastern India. The livelihood of the tribe is very primitive. The farming Garo use a home made hoe called gitchi, in scraping ground and removing weeds. It consists of a small iron blade set into a piece of bamboo root which serves the purpose of a handle. It is believed that the implement is of indigenous origin. It is also used in the plains of north-eastern Indian. The shape and size of the blade of the hoe is a perfect replica of the ground stone celt found from Garo hill neolithic complex.
During neolithic period different technologies were resorted to in designing tools. One of them is grinding technique. Celts are very often shaped by this technique, which is generally termed as ground celt. These celts were specially meant for cutting down trees in preparing agricultural land.
In agricultural field the Garos use another ancient equipment i.e. a digging stick matham. It is made from a suitable branch ofa tree. One end of it is made pointed to go into the ground smoothly. It is used for planting seeds.
Digging stick is known to be used also by the Juang of Keonjhar district. In remote past this primitive tribe observed very rudimentary method of cultivation, which consisted of scratching of the earth by thorny branches of tree and broadcasting of seeds over it. Later on digging sticks and hoes were used in tilling the soil.
From these evidences it may be suggested that in primitive agricultural field also cereals were dibbled by such digging stick of wood or bone but could not survive for archaeologists in the long run.
It may further be mentioned that ring stones are found from most of the Neolithic sites of eastern India. Such ring stones are found to be used as weight of the digging stick by the present day Chenchus. So, we may infer, indirectly, from this evidence that this ring stone might had served the same purpose in neolithic times also. In addition to that the ring stone might have been fitted in the spears also. Another neolithic type of tool, almond shaped celt, has been reported among the neolithic implements of Tamluk, West Bengal. This celt shows a convex cutting edge with nearly elliptical cross section.
Iron blade of similar shape is found to be used by the present day Lhota, Sema and other Naga tribes. The blade of the hoe simply tapers upwards from the edge. It is found on the front of the shorter limb of an angular handle cut from the junction of two branches.
Another agricultural hoe called akuwa is used by the Sema Nagas. It consists merely of a narrow strip of bamboo. It is made in the shape of a necktie. The central part of it is shaved down to form a sharp, flexible blade. The ends are prolonged to cross and afford a hold for the hand. This lighter and handier implement enables the user to do more work within a given time and also preventing injuring the younger crops. Another variety of neolithic tool, which has been classed as ‘axe with broad cutting edge’ by A. H. Dani has been reported to be used by the Kuki tribe of north Cachhar hill area. According to H. B. Medlicott26 this type of stone implement was used as hoe until few years back. The stone was set into a wooden handle and used for tearing out weeds in the rainy season when the ground remained soft.
This neolithic tool type ‘axe with broad cutting edge’, as the name implies is broadest near its cutting edge, straight sides of the tool taper towards the butt.
The Nishi or Dafla is one of the formidable and largest populated tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. This tribe uses a hoe called lowdap clearing weeds. The artifact itself provides in the form of notches in relation to its working edge. This lowdap might have its origin laid in the late neolithic period, in farming operation. This assumption is attested by the presence of various types of constricted stone artifacts which were definitely used with a haft.
Another agricultural implement, a chopper, is designated as da by the Nishis. Its shape suggests that it might be a new adoption and functionally replaced the axe of the stone age. This Nishis also used a stone axe, alengahey for cutting and felling trees. This type of stone axe commonly found world wide during neolithic times.
Among the various kinds of celts, used by the Nagas, roughly triangular celt predominates. Widest part of the tool lies at the edge. The polished blade, is flat on one face and curved down to the edge on the other face. It is probable that the triangular celt would be fitted into a hole of a wooden handle. The triangular celt is a perfectly symmetrical tool of the Neolithic period. It possesses a crescentic hatchet edge, which tapers near the rounded butt, convex surface meet the slightly flattened sides. The butt sides and edge form one continuous and uninterrupted band.
Another type of celt used commonly by the Nagas is wedge shaped celt. This type of celt is bound to crooked sticks before use. The Neolithic wedge shaped celt has a broad, straight, median and bifacially ground cutting edge. The butt end is flat and pointed. This end is chipped transversely and ground. So, survival of such rudimentaiy implement among different tribes is nothing but an indication of antiquity of these tribes. Contemporary culture of few such tribes is indeed archaic in nature, which has its anchorage in the past. It is found that all types of above described tools, which are carried down from neolithic age are mostly related to agricultural operations. So, it will again be reasonable to conclude that eastern and north-eastern Indians would have been rudimentary farmers by neolithic times. In addition to the tools described above there are other tools whose functional aspect along with different hafting process could be conjectured from ethnographic parallels.
Chisel is a characteristic tool of neolithic culture. This cylindrical tool possesses a sharp cutting edge with a flat or rounded butt end. This tool is used by present day tribes for splitting or smoothening plank of wood. So, similar service might have been availed in neolithic times also.
In neolithic period the use of hammer was pretty common at every zone. It was generally made on elongated pebble, with hardly any working. In present context, an old Khampti tribe of Lohit district has been reported as using similar fine hammerstones. Its handle is made of a creeper and lashed on. Hutton described33 a celt of white stone from Naga hills. As it was nearly square in shape, it was not easy to reconstruct its hafting procedure. This confusion was also solved by another ethnographic parallel. Such celts might have been halted like those of the Phom Nagas, who effectively haft their stone hammer by fixing it in a cane loop. The query regarding hafting of lithic celts could be solved from other ethnographic parallels also.
Some shouldered celts are reported to be halted adze wise in typical neolithic fashion by present Naga tribe of Ledo41. The stone celt locally called ‘ta-chumi ’ is hafted by bending a cane rod round the tang to grip the later. Another method of hafting is found among Lhota, Serna and other Nagas. In this method neolithic type almond shaped celts are hafted by bending on to the front of the shorter limb of an angular handle, cut from the junction of two branches.
A very common neolithic hafting practice in use in different parts of the world was the insertion of the blade into the holes near the ends of a club like handle.
This type of hafting is witnessed now-a-days in the Naga hills in which the blade possesses a well defined single tang.
Besides that a number of hafting procedures of neolithic tools have been presumed by Sankalia. Thus it may be said that blades were hafted in various ways in that primitive age, depending on the geomorphological nature of an area. The survival of such typical neolithic cultural traits among the aborigines dimly illumines the unseen world of the primitives. In addition to stone, prehistoric man might had worked at least in wood, from which very satisfactory, fire hardened points cutting edges could be made. Besides suftk- relics, there are other evidences which are freezed in the day to day activities of these tribes, indicating the archaic nature of the same.
The present day Mao tribe of Manipur, Nagas prepare their clothes from a bark fibre, with the help of a spindle whorl of pottery and edge ground stone perforator. Discovered terracotta spindle whorl from Chirand, Maner might have been used for the same purpose in neolithic period.
Ethnographic similarity also help in providing a clue about the religious belief, active among the prehistoric people. The Nagas worship plenty of stones, predominant among them are neolithic type triangular and wedge shaped celts. Thus, it could be said that these neolithic implements were not only used in economic pursuits but they had religious bearings too. Again miniature neolithic celts of softer rocks also might have been worshipped. This smaller tools might have been used as pendants also.
Besides the Nagas most of the present day tribe worship natural objects like trees, hills, stones etc.
From Chirand terracotta figurine of snakes, both hooded and coiled variety have been discovered. The Nagas, Khasis worship similar snake figurine, which is very popular is eastern India. Besides serpent worship, terracotta bull, amulet also implies their use in religious purposes. So, it is evident that in countries like India where tradition persists, many ancient tool types may continue in unadulterated form being carriers of customs.jjn making fire the Santals often employ friction of wood method while the Savaras make it by drill. So, such primitive way of life definitely indicates a borrowing from the very early stage. It may be conjectured that neolithic folk led almost similar livelihood, where natural, perishable material would have been used in the manufacture of daily usable objects. In the moist climate of eastern India these could have decayed before reaching to an archaeologist.
But even this third World country is changing and developing in a rapid stride now and the tribals are being educated to adopt modem civilized life. Thus there is urgent need of extensive study and collection of such ethnographic information before its irretrievable extinction in near future.